848 F. Supp. 2d 352
E.D.N.Y2012Background
- Scalera, disabled by Pompe disease, worked at Electrograph's Hauppauge office from Sept 16, 2005 to Oct 11, 2006 and used a cane; management knew of her mobility issues.
- She alleges two accommodations were needed: a higher toilet seat in the women’s restroom and a hand rail at the side entrance, which were not provided.
- Electrograph employed about 200 people; it later liquidated. Smith was CEO, Gordon HR Director, Koziol Director of Operations.
- Electrograph provided several accommodations (chair of choice, side entrance access, a close parking spot near side entrance, use of the executive bathroom, and daily assistance).
- In Dec 2005 Koziol discussed relocating Scalera closer to the ladies room and offered use of the executive bathroom; Scalera disputes the practicality and sufficiency of accommodations.
- On Jul 13, 2006 Scalera fell exiting via the side entrance, took 12 weeks of non‑FMLA leave, then was terminated; she has workers’ compensation and disability benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie case for failure to accommodate | Scalera need show disability and denial of reasonable accommodation. | Dispositive motive element required or burden shifts only after showing accommodation was provided or undue hardship. | Disputed facts remain; not appropriate for summary judgment on prima facie showing. |
| Relation of accommodations to essential functions | Accommodations (raised toilet, hand rail) pertain to essential job function and access. | Accommodations not tied to essential functions or unnecessary. | Jury could determine that accommodations relate to essential functions; issue for trial. |
| Reasonableness of the alleged accommodations and denial of accommodation | Two requested accommodations were reasonable and necessary. | Plaintiff did not need them; five other accommodations were provided. | Material facts about reasonableness remain; not appropriate for summary judgment. |
| Individual NYHRL liability of Gordon, Koziol, Smith | Individuals can be liable under NYSHRL §296(1) or §296(6). | Limited evidence of individual authority; some may be liable under §296(6). | Gordon and Koziol factual questions remain; Smith potential direct liability; issues for trial. |
| Interactive process | Defendants failed to engage in proper interactive process regarding accommodations. | Defendants claim they engaged in interactive process. | Facts disputed; jury should assess whether interactive process was properly conducted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parker v. Sony Pictures Entm’t, Inc., 260 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2001) (discrimination claim need not prove motive in failure-to-accommodate context; but causal link to action matters when linked to removal or firing)
- Lyons v. Legal Aid Soc’y, 68 F.3d 1512 (2d Cir. 1995) (failure to show accommodation can violate ADA; broad view of essential functions)
- Higgins v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., 194 F.3d 252 (1st Cir. 1999) (no discriminatory animus required to prove failure to accommodate; focus on disability and accommodation)
- Trepka v. Bd. of Educ. of Cleveland, 28 F.App’x 455 (6th Cir. 2002) (summary judgment improper when plaintiff disputes adequacy of offered accommodations; Trepka cited as contrast to this case)